This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Noise ordinances won’t necessarily stop a multi-resonant whine from permeating the area.
What did you do for Earth Day this year? I spent mine visiting a notoriously loud artificial intelligence campus in Virginia’s Data Center Alley. The experience brought home to me just how big a problem noise can be for the communities adjacent to these tech campuses – and how much further local officials have to go in learning how to deal with them.
The morning of April 22, I jumped into a Toyota Highlander and drove it out to the Vantage VA2 data center campus in Sterling, Virginia, smack dab in the middle of a large residential community. The sensation when I got out of the car was unignorable – imagine an all-encompassing, monotonous whoosh accompanied by a low rumble you can feel in your body. It sounds like a jet engine that never stops running or a household vacuum amplified to 11 running at all hours. It was rainy the day I visited and planes from nearby Dulles International Airport were soaring overhead, but neither sound could remotely eclipse the thudding, multi-resonant hum.
If you want to hear the sound for yourself, this video accurately sums it up.
After parking nearby I walked to one of the residential enclaves adjacent to VA2. One resident of a home across the street, who declined to give me her name, said she moved there before the project was completed. When asked how she felt about the noise, she told me, “It’s not as bad as it could be on the other side [of the data center], where all the equipment is.” (While the sound does get louder on the other side, I could clearly hear VA2 from her driveway.)
VA2’s noise has been causing problems for months, as documented by numerous social media posts, local news clips, and a feature published in Politico. It’s doubtful many of those living near the data center wanted it there. The project was built quite quickly – so quickly that Google Earth still shows undeveloped woodlands on the site. Per public filings, Vantage first proposed the facility in 2022 under the county’s fast-track commercial incentive program, an expedited permitting process for specific preferred industries. It was under construction as recently as October 2024, according to images captured by Google Street View.
Noise is one of the most common issues associated with data centers. At least a third of all conflicts over data centers are over noise complaints, and noise is the number one reason for opposition in cases where projects were ultimately canceled, according to Heatmap Pro data.
This issue goes back almost a decade. In 2019, residents of the Phoenix ex-urb Chandler, Arizona, became irate after a loud monotonous hmmmm began emanating from a CyrusOne data center. In that case, CyrusOne traced the noise back to chilling fans, and the company reduced the sound with muffling devices.
Chandler wound up adopting a new ordinance in 2023 requiring sound mitigation measures to prevent companies from exceeding certain ambient noise levels in the surrounding areas. That did nothing to improve the mood of the people who live there, however. Now Chandler, once known as a potential data center development hub, is now firmly in the anti- camp. The city council unanimously rejected a proposed $2.5 billion data center campus in December over noise concerns, despite an expensive lobbying push backed by former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
As data centers spread across the U.S., noise is becoming an ever-more-common complaint. You can hear the familiar hum at a DataOne data center project in Vineland, New Jersey. DataOne told us they “understand concerns about ambient noise in the area” and are operating within the limits of local noise ordinances.
The hum is also in Dowegiac, Michigan, where people living nearby are calling their new Hyperscale Data facility a “noise trap,” with little explanation to date for the issue. Hyperscale Data did not respond to a request for comment.
And the hum is in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, where the sound from a new Microsoft data center campus rises above any din from rain. The hyperscaling giant is doing more to mitigate the issue than I’m used to seeing from data center developers, however.
On April 15, the company published an update on its own internal investigations into noise complaints. “Although the facility noise levels meet the requirements set by local ordinance, we take this feedback seriously and understand the impact this has had on our neighbors,” the update read. “We anticipated that our systems would need adjustments and create some noise as part of the datacenter startup, but we did not expect the tonal quality of the sound to travel as far as it has.”
To address the noise, Microsoft said it was “manually adjusting the cooling fans” to reduce noise, and that “we expect this change to address community concerns about the tonal humming.” On top of that, the company said it will install “additional sound reduction components” to “provide even further reductions in measured sound levels.” A Microsoft spokesperson told me in an email: “We’ve identified the source of the noise concerns and have implemented changes to significantly reduce sound from our facility.”
It isn’t cooling fans causing the noise at Vantage’s VA2 in Virginia, however. The sound, according to media reports, is coming from gas turbines powering the data center.
VA2 is one of the first in Virginia to function entirely off-grid, a design companies are adopting in order to avoid lengthy grid connection processes. Company spokesman Mark Freeman told me the facility is “fully compliant with all local noise ordinances, and this has been verified by third-party sound studies.”
“Additionally, in line with our commitment, we are actively working with third-party engineers to explore additional sound mitigation options,” Freeman continued. Freeman said “Our goal is to further reduce noise levels where possible and continue to foster a positive environment for everyone.”
Here’s the thing, though: I visited the Vantage campus after initially hearing from the company, and it was loud. Very loud.
I did not bring a decibel meter with me, so I cannot know whether they were operating within legal limits that day. What I do know is that noise ordinances struggle to properly capture sounds in multiple frequency ranges, making high and low frequencies challenging to regulate, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a bipartisan non-profit think tank. Officials representing Loudon County, where VA2 is located, have acknowledged that the local ordinance may need to change in order to address the most distressing frequencies from the data center campus.
“We can change the zoning ordinance and noise ordinance,” Loudon County supervisor Mike Turner told local TV station WUSA9 last week. “Noise can be mitigated. I just don’t believe that the noise problem cannot be solved.”
I wrote Freeman, the Vantage spokesman, to tell him I had visited the VA2 campus and found the noise to be “quite foul.” He replied soon after, telling me that Vantage is going “above and beyond what is required in order to address concerns from nearby residents.” The company is using “targeted enhancements to turbine-related equipment such as dampening equipment, enclosure inlets and enclosure exhausts.” These measures “represent meaningful progress and will help us better evaluate the effectiveness of the broader solutions under consideration.” Freeman also said the company is “actively assessing additional options” focused on “targeted frequency ranges.”
As we continue to track local regulation of data centers, I’m we’ll see many more cases like VA2, in which obtrusive sound prompts forms of regulation we may have never seen before.
Or, people will just hear these noises and say no to more data centers.
Plus more of the week’s biggest project development fights.
New Jersey – Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
Montgomery County, Alabama – A statewide solar farm ban is dead for now after being blocked by lawmakers who had already reduced its scope.
Doña Ana County, New Mexico – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to move faster on data center power infrastructure, but at least one energy project for a major hyperscaler is trapped in internal conflicts.
Hawkins County, Tennessee – A local free-market nonprofit is suing this county in federal court to argue data center bans are unconstitutional.
Mingo County, West Virginia – Speaking of federal data center cases, West Virginia regulators will now be forced to testify in the legal challenge against a large hyperscaler in the heart of coal country.
Will County, Illinois – This county reversed several solar project rejections, but it didn’t do so happily.
King County, Washington – Seattle might be the next major city to ban data centers.
Chatting with the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s Evan Vaughan.
This week’s conversation is with Evan Vaughan, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. The trade group is at the center of things right now, representing many of the 13 states in the PJM Interconnection region, including power-hungry Virginia. MAREC reached out to me so we could talk about how it sees various energy trends, from the rise of a new transmission build-out to the resilience of renewable energy in the Trump 2.0 era.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So where does your membership stand as the Inflation Reduction Act starts to fade into the distance?
The momentum we’ve seen coming out of the Inflation Reduction Act has largely kept pace up until this point. We’re entering into a little bit of unknown territory going forward given that tax credits are phasing out their primary eligibility by July, and we have some significant PJM milestones coming up, including the first post-transition cluster study happening with allocations due in April. In some ways, that first post-transition cluster is going to be really indicative of what direction we see the future energy mix shaping up like in PJM going forward. It’s an interesting time to have this conversation because we’re at such an inflection point.
How much is local siting conflict holding up development?
Local siting challenges are a big problem for getting new generation onto the grid, and it’s not just a wind and solar issue. It’s any generation source. It often gets couched as a wind and solar issue because that’s been the vast majority of the megawatts coming out of the PJM queue over the last five years or so. Even with that being said, there’s been local opposition with the Chesterfield gas plant in Virginia, too.
If you watch what PJM says about the state of their queue, they rightly point out that they’ve processed a number of queue applications, almost cleared out the backlog from their queue transition, and point out supply chain and siting issues for projects once they’ve exited the queue.
The PJM queue is a conveyor belt heading into a volcano. Projects, when they get to the end, they either encounter issues like local denials of their permits, or supply chain issues, or increasingly, interconnection cost challenges, in which case they fall into the volcano. Of those three issues, local siting is the one most readily apparent today.
I still think it’s a sleeper issue for politicians and the general public because there’s confusion over who holds the authority over our electricity generation future. Obviously PJM holds a lot of levers, and the states have a lot of power, and federal policy matters. But in the end, whether there’s enough generation to meet that demand comes down to thousands of local officials across PJM’s 13 states making enough “yes” decisions to make sure we have enough megawatts in place to keep the lights on.
Last week I wrote a feature on transmission development in the PJM region, the need for more wires on the grid, and conflicts over those projects. From your vantage point, how are these conflicts going to be resolved? Is it with local decision-making? Or does some of this interstate tension need to be fixed in other ways?
It’s not the local governments that are the bad guys here. It’s that they have a decision-making framework mismatch from what they care about – valid local issues – and the electricity supply-demand balance. If the lights go off or bills continue to rise and someone in the political realm loses their job, the average voter isn’t going to blame the local government. They’ll blame the state and broader government for these issues.
There’s a real problem with the storytelling aspect of transmission. I’m really optimistic as states come together around FERC’s order 1920, which is finally getting to the implementation stage, as the PJM region will be the first to file a complete planning and cost-allocation filing with the commission. The vision of 1920 is to create more state input with how lines are planned. That’ll hopefully provide some relief to the transmission controversies.
Do you think that whack-a-mole approach is why we’re seeing the level of tension we are on the ground over transmission?
Yes.
Well, that’s a simple answer.
I can elaborate. Essentially, the way transmission is planned is that reliability faults pop up on the system, PJM’s engineers identify faults, and then they identify the kinds of upgrades needed to address faults. It’s a backwards-looking process. It’s not tangible to an everyday person.
Starting from where we want to go in terms of state needs for energy generation and then asking people for input is a much better way to get public buy-in and reduce opposition.
What is the biggest issue that’s top of mind for MAREC?
I worry that for all the activity happening at the state level, the PJM level, and the federal level to try and address the supply-demand imbalance on the grid, it is mostly not adding up to a picture resulting in more generation coming online at the scale we need.
Many of the solutions proposed tend to miss some of the fundamental needs of businesses to draw them to invest in a new generation resource. Many of the solutions being worked on at the states and PJM level are trying to address an urgent near-term need, but what we see is all the changes are actually being disruptive in and of themselves.
What in this moment gives you hope? What makes you optimistic about the future?
I think we are still seeing a huge amount of enthusiasm from our member companies to invest in the PJM region, even with all the headwinds we have. It speaks to a fundamental value that our resources – wind, solar and storage – provide to the grid.